Slashdot Mirror
Dutch Government Confirms Plan To Ban New Petrol, Diesel Cars By 2030 (electrek.co)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Electrek: Today, the new Dutch government presented its detailed plan for the coming years and it includes making all new cars emission-free by 2030 -- virtually banning petrol- and diesel-powered cars in favor of battery-powered vehicles. The four coalition parties have been negotiating their plans since the election in March and now after over 200 days, they have finally released the plan they agreed upon. NL Times posted all the main points of the plan and in "transportation," it includes: By 2030 all cars in the Netherlands must be emission free. While some local publications are reporting "all cars," we are told that it would be for "all new cars" as it is the case for the countries with similar bans under consideration. The potential for the ban has been under consideration in the country since last year. The year 2025, like in Norway, has been mentioned, but they apparently decided for the less ambitious goal of 2030.
It won't matter....after 2030, all you'd be able to buy (brand new) is an electric car. Gasoline vehicles will become fewer and fewer as the years go by, It will probably be about another 50 to 60 years before they are fully gone.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Yesterday I saw a Kia Soul electric SUV here in northern England. When you even have companies like Kia selling them then I don't have any worries that there will be an issue by 2030.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
Dont forget where this legislation is coming from.
Car manufacturers love this idea.
Phase 1 is to move all new cars to electric - its actually quite a bit cheaper to make (engines/drive trains are horrible complex)
Phase 2 is then, of course, to ramp up 'pollution taxes' on the existing fleet of non-electrics, to 'transition' everyone to electric.
ie: a huge force to push people to purchase new vehicles.
It will be interested to see where they will build the obsolescence in to the new cars, so we need to buy a new one every 5-10 years.
I am guessing it will mostly be in the battery packs initially, with a lot of work going in to making sure they cannot be economically swapped,
and their lifespan is not too much to get in the way of profit.
Longer term I would expect new regulations to 'remove unsafe older electric vehicles' from the road for a bunch of made up reasons.
Just follow the money. Sad but true.
I'm pretty sure that there won't be 2 billion automobiles in the Netherlands by 2030.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I hope you're able to make enough Lithium batteries for 2 billion cars a year.
Nonsense. There aren't 2 billion cars on earth, and even if there were they would not all need to be replaced in one year.
There are about 60 million cars made per year. With the expected shift to on-demand SDC taxis, that could decline dramatically.
Known lithium reserves are about 15 million tonnes. A car with a 300 km range uses about 10kg of lithium. So we have enough for 1.5 billion cars, or about enough to replace every gas car on earth.
Of course, new lithium reserves will be found, and as a fallback we can extract lithium from geologic brine, or even the oceans which contain about 230 billion tonnes (enough for 30 trillion cars).
I'll admit I can't be bothered to RTFA. But, from what I'm seeing, they're banning gasoline & diesel engines.
It doesn't sounds to me like they're picking "winners." Electric, hydrogen fuel cell, hydrogen IC, and CNG should all pass, as well as cars that run on smugness, self-satisfaction, or pixie dust. What fails is gasoline and diesel.
So it sounds more like they picked the "losers."
One made in Germany...
... The link also says "The cabinet is banning criminal motorcycle gangs."
I'm glad the legal gangs with their electric scooters aren't being targeted.
(Just gave up my right to mod this article for this post)
That's a distinction without a difference.
It's a distinction with an enormous difference -- around 90% difference, which is the proportion of vehicles which are not replaced every year.
As for the volumes... The Netherlands buys about 400K vehicles per year. That's not going to be a problem given the number of car manufacturers tooling up for EVs. How they're going to manage charging for all of the apartment dwellers that park on the street, that may be a problem. But, I think, a manageable one. Especially since most of those apartment dwellers will probably just give up having a car before 2030, preferring instead to use self-driving taxis.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Here's how I see that panning out. The tax on the gas cars will raise the price. Whether it's a percentage or a flat rate per car the price will become invisible in time, people just won't notice it much like how people don't think much about a sales tax. The same will happen for the electric vehicles, any subsidy on their sale will become invisible to the buyer.
To further cover up the tax on gas cars the car makers will do one of two things. They could make cheaper cars, where the engine is a bit smaller, the seats and stereo not as nice, and so on. They could alternatively make it more expensive with more powerful engines, fancy electronics, and so on. With the more expensive car a flat fee looks small, and any percentage tax on such vehicles is made up for in a car that goes real fast.
Let's face it, electric cars are just more expensive. This would be even more apparent if comparing this to cars that were stripped down to the most basic of a car with just four wheels and a seat. If some leap in technology makes this not true then this falls apart, and people buy electric cars because they are cheap, not because they are "green". At that point the subsidy becomes just paying people to buy cars.
So, people looking for a cheap car will buy the gas car because as it is right now there is no electric car cheaper than a gas car. This cheap car is taxed to pay someone to buy an expensive electric car. These people have enough money to buy whatever car they want. They might buy the electric car because they want to be "green", or maybe because the subsidy means they can now afford leather seats with integrated heating and cooling instead of the cheaper cloth seats.
Congratulations, you have now created a wealth redistribution system that taxes the poor to pay rich people to buy luxury cars.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
To be fair Kia Souls are generally acknowledged as being very good cars. They look a little weird but then again so do most Slashdot commentators.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
You and your wife both drive 150-200 miles/day? Like, 60,000 miles/year? While consuming only 11kWh/day for your home? Surely your numbers are off...
Either way, if your home is capable of running a clothes dryer you should be able to re-charge electric no problem. I drive 50 miles a day (which I consider a pretty shitty commute) and recharge off a standard 110v no problem.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
I don't know. England has been known to make a few nice cars.
https://cdn.jamesedition.com/m...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Then it's going to turn out that manufacturing and remanufacturing batteries en masse is a dirty and expensive business
It seems the Koch brothers propaganda and smear tactics are working well on some people.
- Chuq
" Instead an increasing levy on vehicles that produce emmissions"
I just bought a "new" car. It was $11000, for a 2011 model year with 40k on it in nearly pristine condition, and a mid-level trim level (so it has a few options and upgrades, air, heated seats, etc...)
How much are you going to subsidize a new electric car to make it price competitive to that?
People will flock to electric when it's cheaper. But trying to force it with tax and subsidy... just amounts to, as the other poster said, taking money from the poor to help the wealthy buy new cars, with all kinds of fun unintended consequences.
The poor family living in a rented apartment parking on the street -- they have to buy a fuel car because they can't reliably plug in at night. Meanwhile the rich suburban folks with 2 car garage buy themselves new subsidized electric vehicle because they can plug it in their garage every night. Nice.
In 2015 28.8% of the EU (EU-28) electricity (not energy) production was renewable and had doubled compared to 2005. So EU is on a fast trajectory towards renewable electricity consumption. A reasonable estimate may be that by 2030 40-50% of the electricity production in the EU is renewable.
This will of course mean that a similar proportion of the energy spent by electric cars is from renewable sources. Furthermore a large number of people die due to particle pollution from cars in Europe (we have a lot more diesel cars than in the US). When the tailpipes are substituted by tall chimneys these numbers will also drop dramatically.
In Netherlands the number of cars per capita is the lowest in highly developed countries. The public transport is very good (easy to do in a country with such a big population density) and bikes are everywhere. People that commute by trains will often have two bikes - one at each station. In Amsterdam it is simply not practical to have a car. You need a parking permit to park it in front of your house (and parking permits are a sparse good), parking in the city center is 5EUR/hour. That being said, I am curious what they are going to do to (Royal Dutch) Shell.
This is a plan from a centre-right government...
Maybe in the USA where it is apparently the norm to repeal decisions of the previous government purely out of spite, but in Europe legislation can easily survive for centuries.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Environmentalists have hated corn ethanol from the beginning (they've been more mixed on biodiesel, but most are not fans). Corn ethanol has the support of midwest farmers and their senators / reps, not environmentalists. Direct your complaints to farmers and their reps.
It isn't. Do we really need to go into the endless number of peer-reviewed studies that have been conducted on lifecycle assessments of EVs? The short of it is that while low volume EVs may embody about twice the manufacturing pollution of a gasoline vehicle, a mass-manufactured EV embodies only slightly more (depending on the study and its assumptions, around 15%), and regardless, in both cases, pollution from operation vastly outweighs pollution from usage, and both end up recycled, with about 70% average recovery of embodied pollution on the EV. And all this ignores the fact that many manufacturers are working to have their EV production 100% solar driven.
Sorry, that's not how batteries work; you're thinking of rockets. There is no "fuel and oxidizer" reaction in an EV. Lithium-ion batteries work by the migration of lithium ions across a barrier, either intercalated into graphite and/or silicon on the anode side, or into a mixed metal oxide (such as nickel-cobalt-aluminum oxide) or similar structure on the cathode side. Intercalated = they fill up the interstitial sites in their host compound.
Secondly, you betray a complete lack of understanding of chemistry with your statement. How "dangerous" a substance is is not linearly related to its energy density. Nitroglycerin has an energy density of 6,37 MJ/kg. A block of aluminum has an energy density of 31 MJ/kg. Which one is safer? The volumetric difference between the two is even greater, BTW.
Third, there's an implicit "all else being equal" in your argument. But all else is not equal. In a gasoline car, the fuel is just poured into a big open tank in your vehicle. In an EV, there's a huge array of safety measures - cell expansion space, individual cell rupture isolation, active cooling, passive quench, controlled venting, etc, etc. Rates of EV fires have been much lower than rates of gasoline fires; the packs are so difficult to burn that you can sometimes burn the rest of the car without igniting the pack. And when you do force the ignition of a pack, here's what happens (that's Powerwall, but the tech is the same as in Tesla's vehicles).
Everyone talks of every single fire incident in EVs, while ignoring that ~200k gasoline cars catch fire and burn every year in the US alone. The per mile rate for EVs is much lower.
While it's possible to buy an EV for 100k or more (just like it's possible to buy a $100k+ gasoline car), the overwhelming majority on the market are far cheaper than that.
None of the popular EVs outside China are "Chinese garbage". The most popular are Tesla, GM, Nissan / Renault, Toyota, Mitsubishi, Hyundai, and BMW. There are some additional brands that sell a lot inside China, but almost nothing outside of it.
"If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
Meanwhile, here's what living through natural disasters is actually like with EVs.
"If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
I think the real world will be different. These cars will never be clean, be full of graffiti and other stuff like baby poo, animal shit and germs, unless they are cleaned after every trip, which makes them much more expensive.
-- Cheers!
You could get a gassifier (like this, although this model is currently out of stock) and feed that to your car. A skilled mechanic shouldn't have too much trouble with it. If you wanted to show off that you were burning coal, you could have a window installed on the stainless hopper.
Do be careful, though - a large portion of the mass of coal gas is carbon monoxide; that's one of the key things that's combusting when you burn it. The combustion plus your cat shouldn't make the exhaust unusually problematic, but because of the risk of leaks, do install a detector.
Now, if you don't want to run on coal gas, but rather coal directly, that's a much bigger project. You'd need an external combustion engine, like a steam engine. But coal gas should be a relatively straightforward retrofit for a pickup truck.
"If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
It's a distinction with an enormous difference -- around 90% difference, which is the proportion of vehicles which are not replaced every year.
So, you are saying that the difference is that instead of replacing all cars, new and old, is distinct from replacing only new cars sold? Cars wear out and get replaced. I recall the typical lifespan of a car is about 10 years. I don't know if that was an average, median, half life, or whatever, or if it wasn't 12 years or 8. My point is that banning ownership of all petroleum cars versus merely banning the sale of new petroleum cars is a difference of perhaps a decade of CO2 emitting cars on the roads. Whether it's 5, 15, or 25 years I don't see this happening.
As for the volumes... The Netherlands buys about 400K vehicles per year.
But it's not just the Netherlands doing this. If you read the article (yes, I know this is Slashdot) then you'd know that UK, France, China, and other nations have similar plans. That's a lot of electric cars.
Let's view this from an economics perspective, basic supply and demand. As governments demand their subjects buy electric cars there will be a rise in demand, and therefore prices. Demand for petroleum goes down, and so would it's prices. These governments may be successful in converting their jurisdiction to electric cars but the rest of the world will still be driving petroleum cars. In fact the rate of people buying these cars might accelerate since existing manufacturing capability for engines just doesn't go away, they'll be looking for new markets. With lower fuel prices more people can afford them.
This isn't going to do much in the grand scheme of things. The oil will still be burned. This cannot be legislated away. It's not like it takes advanced technology to make an internal combustion engine either, we've been mass producing them for a century now. The factories will move to developing nations if banned from Europe or wherever.
The only sure way to stop people from burning petroleum is to give them something better. Right now electric cars sell largely on government mandates and people wanting to show off their concern for the environment. There are very real physical limitation that will keep electric vehicles from outperforming cars that burn hydrocarbons. Only when, or if, electric vehicles can provide a greater value to a large majority of people will they replace internal combustion engines.
We have politicians that think they can legislate the color of the sky. They will have to learn that they can't. Also, we need people that don't run to the government to solve all our problems. If you want to see electric cars replace petroleum cars then make an electric car a product that people would want to buy instead.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
1) All cars have greatly increased in safety over time, not just smaller cars. How anyone could interpret this as a bad thing is beyond me. And vehicle sizes vary alongside the cost to purchase and operate them, which should surprise nobody; no conspiracy or "value judgement" is required.
2) Since when has anyone seen natural gas vehicles as "bad"? They've never been popular, but that's not the same as "bad".
3) Corn ethanol has never been popular among environmentalists; they've been someone of the most adamant opponents. Some support other biofuels, such as algal biodiesel or switchgrass ethanol, but others don't support any biofuels at all. As for corn ethanol, it's popular among farmers (and consequently, their representatives in congress).
4) No, EV batteries don't contain heavy metals (like your gasoline vehicle's battery does). The worst things that they contain (and which aren't a fundamental requirement) are nickel and cobalt (like you find in stainless steel alloys - minus the much more problematic chromium). Nickel has contact sensitivity, but you're not going to be wearing EV cathodes as earrings. Both have health effects as dusts or soluble salts (not at abnormally low concentrations, mind you) - but neither are in the form of dusts or soluble salts, they're in the form of inert oxides (less prone to leaching than even stainless steel). Minor leaching from battery packs would actually be a good thing, mind you, because large chunks of the world's grasslands are cobalt deficient, which hinders B12 production (cobalamin). Not that you'd actually leave them just sitting around, because nickel and cobalt are valuable ($10 and $50/kg, respectively), and the cathodes are surprisingly similar to rich nickel-cobalt ores already.
5) Yes, there always will be something better because that's what the advancement in technology leads to. If you don't like that, go Amish.
"If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
Private = Owned by private citizens
Public = Owned "the public" (city, federal government, etc)
It has nothing to do with how parking is arranged. Secondly, why would you assume that only on-street parking would get chargers but not parking garages? In Norway there are entire parking garages dedicated specifically to EVs. And this is just the start - while now 1/3rd of all new vehicle sales in Norway are EVs, due to the lag, they're still only a relatively small fraction of total vehicles on the road. The higher the penetration = the more EV parking. And they're not just slow charging garages - countries starting to move into fast charging garages as well.
That didn't answer the question. 1) What is your total average time, in minutes (not just "few") between when you park, and when you get back to your car; and 2) How often do you go to the store?
(not that I actually believe that you only spend "a few minutes" on a grocery store trip and that covers all your groceries)
It takes no more parking spaces. It takes the conversion of parking spaces. It means that parking spaces have plugs, nothing else.
At high penetrations, this change is inherently incentivized for the exact same reason that having parking at all is inherently incentivized.
"If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
digging up oil, transporting it, refining it, transporting it again at least once, and then burning it is a lot more dirty than batteries. Battery costs are dropping all the time, year on year. here's a link to explain lithium "mining" and the myths on the web about it ... https://cleantechnica.com/2016... Perhaps you need to research it before saying "I'm sure mining for lithium is dirty business and manufacturing probably is", guesswork or myth believing is not a substitute for researching
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Actually, I'm in Iceland, but not like it matters. And no, "public" does not in any way, shape, or form mean "not a parking garage". The word "public" has a very specific meaning. Just like the word private does. They're antonyms.
Yes you most certainly can. It's actually easier to install charging stations in grass than concrete. You run a trenching tool down the grass, lay down conduit, fill in the trench, and install the posts. And hey, if you don't want the posts for aesthetic reasons? No problem.
Look, the fact that you're arguing that something "can't be done" where there are places that it already is abundantly done should clue you in to the fact that you're wrong.
"If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
Remember that they need to be called by an app, so the car company knows who's in them, and there will be cameras. If the person after you complains about a problem, they look at the previous journey(s), catch the culprit and charge them for the clean or ban them.
Meanwhile the person that complains can wait for another car.
Taxis work, even without the facility for banning people. There's no reason these couldn't work with that ability.
So we are replacing 'known oil reserves' with 'Known lithium reserves' now.
What happens after we reach 'peak battery production'? They guy asking about batteries for 2 billion cars per year was emotionally modded to oblivion but it's a very valid question.
Charging a battery may be renewable, but those batteries need to be replaced after a certain life-cycle as well.
Worldwide Hoomans produce more than 60 million cars. There's presently about 1.05 billion cards on the roads today and increasing. 2 Billion for new cars, and spare parts / replacements isn't too off the mark.
When we run out of Lithium, what will we turn to next?
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
I just bought a "new" car. It was $11000, for a 2011 model year with 40k on it in nearly pristine condition, and a mid-level trim level (so it has a few options and upgrades, air, heated seats, etc...)
How much are you going to subsidize a new electric car to make it price competitive to that?
Why are you comparing a used ICE car against a new electric car? You are not in the market for a new ICE car, then you're not in the market for a new electric car. However, compare the 6 year old ICE car against a used six year old electric car. Sure, people who only buy used cars will be buying ICEs for longer as it takes time for the used market to get older EVs in the supply chain. IF EVs take off, then the poor will probably be still driving older clunky ICEs for quite some time just as they drive older, clunky, less expensive ICE cars now. Eventually, if driving an ICE car starts to signify you are either a collector or poor, EVs will have won.
Inescapable poverty is an immediate precursor to revolution.
Do you have any Somalian subscribers to your newsletter?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
One HUGE difference between Lithium and oil... the lithium is not used up when the battery reaches the end of its life. Oil is converted to water and carbon dioxide. The lithium remains in the battery. It can be recycled.
"Known Lithium Reserves" is not an estimate on the total amount of lithium on the earth. It is an _very_ conservative estimate of the amount of lithium that can be economically recovered using known, proven sources of lithium.
As lithium prices rise, reserves increase because if becomes economically feasible because it become economically viable to extract lithium from other sources.
As the original poster pointed out, there is a vast amount of lithium in seawater. Seawater is a lousy source of lithium, since seawater is only about 0.6ppm lithium. There are brines out there that are 300ppm lithium. But there is a LOT of seawater.
We will not and cannot run out of lithium.
I'm sorry, but it doesn't work like that. Saying "if it's too hard then it won't work" when you're the one making it hard is totally unfair. You're saying it doesn't work. Either prove it yourself or give us the information needed to prove or disprove your case for you.
And you probably don't. But you refuse to give any actual details, so who the bloody hell knows?
What you're doing is like saying "My site won't load in browsers on Android. I haven't tried, or even collected any data to find out whether it would or not, but I'm just going to assert that it won't. And if you ask me for my site's URL, I'm just going to assert that the very fact that you have to ask for details proves that android is not up to the task of displaying my website."
Sorry, but this game you're playing is over.
"If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
No, it's more like how people don't use linux because they know straight away that it is more complicated than using macos or windows and don't want to deal with it. That seems to be what an EV is for the moment. Nothing wrong with liking how things work now. I get that you are an EV crusader or something, but you can't keep denying that EVs are less convenient than gas for the time being. Hopefully one day they won't be; I suggest you focus on making that happen.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Towing trailers absolutely can be done (see Model X or any of the electric freight trucks available today), and just like with gasoline or diesel vehicles, trailers reduce your range. So they simply require larger batteries and/or faster charging. EVs have more than enough power to tow trailers; if there's one thing they're not short on, it's torque.
If you want to see someone tow a heavy boat up a mountain, for example, here you go :) Here's one towing a caravan. Model X is expensive, but Tesla's next vehicle after the Model 3 will be the Model Y, another crossover (it's still not clear whether the Model 3 will end up with a trailer option, but it'd be shocking if Model Y didn't).
"If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."